Arcane Sandwich

About what?

What dance?

:roll: Then why did you even ask the question in the first place?

No, I don't. Have I actually said that? No, I didn't.

:roll: If I tell you that a + b is an algebraic formula, would you object to that by saying "a and b are letters of the English language?"

:roll: Good for you :up:

It could mean the logical "and". As in, "p and q".

What was your point, again? About the truth of Einstein's formula?

What you just said is a contradiction.

Oh, it's pedantic? So you would say that 2 + 5 is the same formula as 2 - 5?

Where did I say "plus"? Oh that's right, I didn't say it. You said it:

I never said that it does. There's no difference between kinetic and potential energy. Just as there's no difference between energy and heat. It's rea...

Like what? If you can't provide any actual examples of what you just said there, then you just said a bunch of nonsense.

So what's your point?

How would I know? I'd have to calculate it.

I disagree. For all formulas, there are three kinds: those that are T, those that are F, and those that can be either T or F, depending on the case. I...

It's the same as rest mass. And since you have rest in both cases, you can simplify it, so that you're actually talking about energy and mass. Again, ...

Of course it does. Scientists distinguish many different kinds of energy. But's the same type of property, at the end of the day: E.

kinetic and potential energy, dude. In Newtonian terms. It's super simple. You already know this.

It's the energy of an ordinary object, such as a stone or a table, for example. You're calculating the relationship between energy, mass, and the spee...

Ok, so what's the most reasonable alternative, then?

What if I told you to ask Einstein himself? Then what?

Again, why don't you tell me?

Einstein's formula, from a purely mathematical point of view, does not require them.

There, I edited it for you, I think it looks better now. That'll be five cents, please. clubs (?), diamonds (??), hearts (?) spades (?)

Damn.

Yeah man, I hear what you're saying, but you're sorta talking past me. I mean, think of it like this: Who needs to know what x and y are, when you say...

OMFG man, I can't get over that one. Best line of the week, for sure.

To Everyone: Please Help Me Bring the Basilisk Into Existence ;)

:rofl: :death: :fire:

Texans? So what's your point, then?

"we" as in "who"? You and me? Why don't you tell me? Again, why don't you tell me?

I already told you the procedure: 1) solve the square of c, then multiply that by m. It's not that difficult. I'm all ears. Sounds great. I've already...

Artificial Intelligence is not Human Intelligence. This surprises you, somehow?

But you told me not to look it up. Why would you even give me such a bizarre instruction to begin with? Why would I even do that? If I don't know what...

Yes, I did. Einstein's formula has been experimentally corroborated many times.

Then what is your point?

And I asked you, if is a fair reconstruction of your argument, and you said .

Are you sure about this?

Nor this:

By the way, I still haven't looked up what the following means:

It's all good dawg.

I already told you its actual meaning. It's in the OP: It means the following, first and foremost: E = (mc2) What's changed? You introduce brackets "(...

I'm not sure if that's how I'd phrase it, but whatever. Why would you find that interesting, if such was the case? Well, I already told you my underst...

Hey, hey! I'm a True Neutral on the D&D alignment chart. Always have, always will be! :sparkle:

If you say so.

Ok, but given the above set of instructions and nothing else, how do I know that you're not tricking me? No, I don't understand them, I don't read any...

Ok, sure, why not?

But that's what premise (2) says: I am the OP. I don't know if I'm one of those people or not. Why don't you tell me?

Is the following a fair reconstruction of your argument? Let's start with that. (1) There is no ontologically significant difference between E = mc2 a...